bathroom earthing question

Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..
The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes to bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that is earthed is the 8.5kw shower.
Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of the above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in the shower isolating pull cord switch.
Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is no danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never will take any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the electric shower has been connected correctly. So if I was to carry out the earthing work as per regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the chances of an electric shock.
Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will someday work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater switch and then make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly all the earthed stuff is live.
I want to get the bathroom upto spec, but I genuinely feel It'll make the bathroom less safe.
See I told you it was a stupid question :-}
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon wrote:

Not so, electricity takes the path to earth with least resistence, IE straight down the copper pipes, hence the copper strips running up church walls to lightning conductors on the roof, in other words, I could stand on a church roof during a thunderstorm wearing nothing but a suit of armour and not get struck by lightning because I'm not earthed as well as the lighning conductor.

It's a common misconception, but stainless steel sinks have been earthed this way for decades without anyone getting fried while washing dishes, any power getting to the sink will not be felt by the person with wet hands because they offer too much resistance in comparison to a copper pipe straight into the ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But then we have the question of plastic pipes ..???...lol
Stuart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil L wrote:

I bet you wouldn't be willing to put your money where your mouth is..? ;-)
Mathew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Frankly this is ridiculious. There are such things as "leakage currents" and even lightning conductors will melt if the pulse/energy duration lasts long enough. And, there is more than ONE path to earth in the real world.
The leakage current through your suit of armour may well be enough to see you off. I don't suggest you try it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First, lightning is completely irrelevant to the OP's question. Second, leakage currents are irrelevant. That suit of armour puts the human inside a Faraday cage. Therefore a direct lightning strike that might kil the exposed human would become not harm the human inside that conductive armour.
Third, there may be many paths to earth. But when only one has significantly less impedance (not just resistance) - is electrically a much shorter path - then a lightning bolt will take only that path to earth. This is why lightning rods, properly earthed, provide a cone of protection. This is why long distance transmission lines - the most likely item to be struck - are at little risk from lightning being beneath a well earthed catenary wire.
But again, all this is irrelevant to the OP's post about bathroom safety ground. Note to the OP - bathroom is not earth grounded. Bathroom grounds are for human safety. Details in another post.
dave wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Well, not from electricity. But I imagine the armour would get somewhat toasty.
P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@technologist.com wrote:

Could be a bit difficult to get out of afterwards if the joints welded together.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon wrote:

Not in normal circumstances.

Which would not give you an electric shock. To get an electric shock there has to be a voltage (*potential difference*) between two points. The bonding is not there to earth the bathroom, it is there to join every conductive part entering the bathroom to form an equipotential zone. This equipotential bonding prevents the difference in potential (voltage) rising to a dangerous level.
To take an admittedly extreme and theoretical example, and I do not recommend this in practice, you should stick a 240V live cable in your mouth while standing in the bath and not feel the slightest tingle PROVIDED that the bath (and thus you) was also at 240V through the equipotential bodning.
However as your bath is not bonded your "faulty earthed" shower could be at 240V and your bath will probably have some form of earth through the plumbing, so there is a potential difference and the possibility of current flow through your body. D'you want to phone an undertaker now?
It is actually somewhat safer not to have any conductive parts entering the bathroom ie use plastic pipe in which case bonding is not required. However, as most bathrooms tend to be "earthy" having all the conductive parts bonded together and then earthed via the circuit protective conductors (earth wires in circuit cables) means that any fault to earth will cause sufficient fault current to flow to operate the MCB or RCD suitably quickly.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have a look at
http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/NL139supp.pdf
as well
Adam
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cheers, the mother-in-law visits on the weekend, i'll test your theory then.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
She was so ugly not even the tide would take her out...
Mungo :-) [Ni real disrespect to your mother-in-law Jon]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Solutions defined with detail in that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf document demonstrate techiques that have been standard or are slowly becoming standard most everywhere in the past 30 years. This was required in North America starting about 1970. Best way to address electric safety starts by not worrying what you do or do not use in the bathroom. That picture of a human in a bathtub using a hairdryer to blow a sailing boat is what you - the owner of a building - must address.
Start by putting all incoming electrical service on a GFCI - also called RCD. One that trips at leakage currents lower than a building wide RCD. These 'one circuit' type RCDs should trip at something around 10 mA. This mA number will vary with different countries and codes. But any bathroom with electricity should have a dedicated GFCI/RCD type protector regardless of whether required by local codes.
jon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hair driers used in baths was a US-specific problem. We had put rules in place to prevent that before WWII. Even other countries which still haven't don't have the same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

You are wrong on just about every count here with regards to UK regs.
--
Andrew Gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12 Mar 2006 10:22:10 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

Run that last part past me again please ......lol
Stuart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh dear... It was meant to say...
Even other countries which still haven't [put rules in place] don't have the same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.
--
Andrew Gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

So why does a UK article on bathroom protection (www.niceic.org.uk) show a British citizen in a bathtub using a hairdryer to move a sailing ship? Clearly they are not discussing only hairdryers in the bathtub. Clearly they are discussing and I was discussing any electrical appliance, light, etc in a bathroom. An RCD that trips on low amperage ground fault currents is a very effective solution to bathroom human safety - no matter what is required by code. This because the average bathroom in any country contains electrical appliances and lamps.
Does www.niceic.org.uk discuss bathroom electrical safety everywhere but the UK? I don't think so. They use a 'hardryer in a bathtub' as an example of what even UK bathroom wiring should consider possible. Stupid? Yes. And possible in any nation that has electricity in bathrooms. An RCD for bathroom circuits has been standard in the States since 1970 because sometimes people use electrical appliances in the wrong place. If not yet required in the UK, well, RCD for bathrooms is a safety solution long overdue and strongly encouraged.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

While what you say probably applies in the US, its wrong on nearly all points wrt to the UK.
Why does someone show a picture or make a claim? Because they have an agenda maybe?
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Well that reasoning is good and sufficient for an English major. But a technical person would your entire post. Why? Where are the list of details for why "its wrong on nearly all points wrt to the UK". Fine to have an opinion if you keep it to yourself. But when details of "why" are not provided, then it becomes a post so typical of political extremists such as Rush Limbaugh. If your post has merit, then it includes technical WHYs. Without the 'whys' - those essential technical details - it is simply what propagandists, political extremists, and liars do.
If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms - especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12 Mar 2006 23:06:11 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom"
In the past five years there has been a requirement to fit an RCD to certain things in certain parts of bathrooms. Whether this makes people safer has yet to be seen. Personally I suspect that the improvement in safety will be limited.

Who says it is not a hazard? The fact that the IEE has for a very long time had special regulations about rooms containing baths [1] and showers indicates that it is a hazard.
[1] at one time it was fixed baths and showers, but this was dropped a little time ago after tin baths became largely items of historic note only.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.